
Class Jt ^4^ 
Book 1^2n 



\ 



THE 

J0J} 



RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NORTH 



IN RKLATION TO 



SLAVERY. 



CAMBRIDGE: 
PRINTED BY ALLEN AND FARNHAM. 

1 8 5 G . 



THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NORTH IN 
RELATION TO SLAVERY. 



During a debate near the close of the Last session of 
Congress, it was asserted that if the New England 
States had voted in the convention for forming the 
constitution, against the extension of the slave-trade, it 
would have been abolished eight years sooner than it 
was, and charging it upon Massachusetts that, on ac- 
count of her interest in the slave-trade, her members 
voted in fiivor of continuing it until 1808. On some 
doubt being expressed as to the correctness of this 
charge, a southern member challenged a contradiction, 
and one of the Massachusetts senators was ready to con- 
fess for his constituents, for the sake of saying that they 
had since repented. All this seemed to be a new discov- 
ery, and I was at a loss to know on what authority it was 
founded. Upon examination I find it depends upon an 
article published in the National Intelligencer, quoting 
from the journal of the convention as follows: — "The 
first committee on the subject consisted of Rutledge of 
South Carolina, Randolph of Virginia, Wilson of Penn- 
sylvania, Gorham of Massachusetts, and Ellsworth of 
Connecticut, and they reported as a section for the con- 



stitution, ' That no tax or other daty should be laid on 
the migration or importation of such persons as the 
several States should think proper to admit, nor shall 
such migration or importation be prohibited.' 

" This was the first action of the convention on the 
slavery question ; and it will be seen that a committee, 
the mnjority of which was from what are now strong 
anti-slavery States, reported against any future prohibi- 
tion of the African slave-trade, but were willing to le- 
galize it perpetually. 

" This section was subsequently referred to a commit- 
tee selected by ballot, consisting of Langdon of New 
Hampshire, King of Massachusetts, Johnson of Con- 
necticut, Livingston of New Jersey, Clymer of Penn- 
sylvania, Dickinson of Delaware, Martin of Maryland, 
Madison of Virginia, Williamson of North Carolina, C. 
C. Pinckney of South Carolina, and Baldwin of Geor- 
gia. This committee, a majority of which was from 
slave States, reported the clause with authority to Con- 
gress to prohibit the slave-trade after the year 1800, 
and in the mean time to levy a tax on such importa- 
tions. This section was afterwards modified and adopted 
as it now exists in the constitution, extending the time 
before which Congress could not prohibit the trade 
until 1808 ; Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Con- 
necticut, free Slates, and Maryland, North and South 
Carolina, slave States, voting for the extension, New Jer- 
sey and Pennsylvania, free States, and Delaware and 
Virginia, slave Slates, voting against it." So far the 
statement in the Intelligencer. 

The inferences drawn are as follows: — 

" 1. A committee, the majority of which was from 



free States, report in favor of denying to Congress the 
power at any period to prohibit the African slave- 
trade." 

" 2. That a subsequent committee, a majority of 
which was from the slave States, reported a new section, 
authorizing; Cono;ress to abolish the trade after 1800." 

" 3. That this period was extended until the year 
1808, thus giving eight additional years to the traffic, 
by the vote of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Con- 
necticut, while the vote of Virginia was against such 
extension." 

All this bears such an appearance of authenticity, 
that we are not surprised that it has found its way into 
Mr. Adams's " South side View of Slavery," — but he 
goes somewhat further, and makes New England re- 
sponsible for the slaves imported between 1800 and 
1808, w^ith all their posterity, estimated at 300,000, and 
asks, " Can any one inform us where Northern moral 
sense was, or whether it was in the convention, when 
the North protracted the slave-trade eight years longer 
than the South wished to endure it?" 

Before this becomes settled as an uncontradicted 
charge against New England, it may be well to exam- 
ine the matter a little further, which we are fortunately 
able to do by the "Debates in the Federal Convention," 
published in the "Madison Papers,"* and we shall find 
that the whole proceedings give no warrant, either for 
the charge that Massachusetts was influenced in her 

* The report of Judge Yates contains nothing on the subject, he hav- 
ing left the convention on the 5th of July, before this matter came 
under consideration. 



6 



votes by the interest of her citizens in the slave-trade, 
or that the North protracted the slave-trade eight years 
longer than the South whhcd to endure it. 

The history of the proceedings of the convention is 
as follows. From their organization on the 25th of 
May, 1787, to the 20th of July, the convention was en- 
gaged in discussing and deciding on the principles which 
should be embodied in the constitution, and on the vari- 
ous plans and motions which were submitted for their 
consideration. Having decided, in a preliminary man- 
ner, upon most of these, in the form of resolutions, on 
Monday, July 23d, it was voted, " That the proceedings 
of the convention for the establishment of a national gov- 
ernment be referred to a committee to prepare and re- 
port a constitution conforrnahle therctor 

This committee was appointed by ballot on the 24th, 
consisting of Messrs. Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham, Ells- 
worth, and Wilson, who are afterwards several times re- 
ferred to as the " committee of detail." And on " the 
26th, the proceedings since Monday last were unani- 
mously referred to the committee of detail, and the con- 
vention unanimously adjourned till Monday, August 6th, 
that the committee of detail might have time to prepare 
and report the constitution." 

It may be well to notice here, how carefully the au- 
thority of this committee is restricted. Though the 
vote was passed on the 23d of July referring the pro- 
ceedings of the convention to the committee, to prepare and 
report a constitution co;//bn««^/t' thereto, the convention 
still proceed until the 2Gth to debate and settle further 
principles, and then refer these further proceedings to 
the same committee for the same purpose, after having 



completed what may be considered their instructions to 
the committee. This committee of detail is the first com- 
mittee alluded to in the article from the Intelligencer, 
a majority of which was from the free States, and who 
are charged with reporting the article against any 
future prohibition of the African slave-trade. Now it 
will be seen that the duty of this committee was only 
to digest and prepare a constitution in conformity with the 
proceedings cdready taken hy the convention. In reporting 
the preliminary form of a constitution, containing the 
article above mentioned, they could only be responsible 
for the faithful digest and arrangement of the proceed- 
ings of the convention referred to them for this purpose, 
and in obeying the instructions of the convention they 
should be fairly and fully exonerated on their part from 
the guilt of any intention of '• legalizing slavery per- 
petually." 

It should be further mentioned as an indication of the 
prevailing feeling at the time, that on the passage of 
the vote for this committee, " General Pinckney re- 
minded the convention that if the committee should 
fail to insert some security to the Southern States 
against an emancipation of slaves, and taxes on exj)orts, 
he should be bound by duty to his State to vote against 
their report." * 

Having now disposed of the first accusation against 
the North, and seen how far the committee from the 
free States are chargeable with a disposition to " legalize 
slaveryl' it is time to proceed to an examination of the 
further doings of the convention. 

* Madison Papers, p. 1187, 



The committee of detail reported the proposed form and 
outline of a constitution on the 6th of August, contain- 
ing the article as first drawn respecting slaver}^, with 
the clause denying to Congress the power to prohibit 
the importation of slaves, and the convention then pro- 
ceeded to debate and decide upon the several articles, 
with or without amendment. On Tuesday, the 21st 
day of August, as appears by the journal of the con- 
vention, when this part of the report was under consid- 
eration, " on the question to agree to the first clause of 
the fourth section of the seventh article as reported, it 
passed in the affirmative. It was then moved and sec- 
onded to insert the word ^free ' before ^persons ' in the 
fourth section of the seventh article. The clause would 
then read, ' No tax or duty shall be laid by the legisla- 
ture on articles exported from any State, nor on the 
migration or importation of such free persons as the sev- 
eral States shall think proper to admit, nor shall such 
migration be prohibited.' " A debate on this motion 
was continued until the adjournment for the day, and 
part of the next day, during which, the journal says, 
the motion was withdrawn, and it appears from the lan- 
guage used by some of the speakers that a motion was 
under consideration to strike out the clause. 

A few extracts from the speeches of the members 
Avill show the feelings of the North and of the South on 
the subject of slavery, and enable the reader to decide 
how far the North was guilty of protracting the slave- 
trade " eight years longer than the South wished to en- 
dure it." 

When that part of the report relating to representa- 
tion in Congress was under consideration, Mr. King, of 



9 



Massachusetts, had remarked that '' the admission of 
slaves was a most grating circumstance to his mind, 
and he beheved would be so to a great part of the peo- 
ple of America. He had not made a strenuous opposi- 
sition to it heretofore, because he had hoped that this 
concession would have produced a readiness, which has 
not been manifested, to strengthen the general govern- 
ment, and to mark a full confidence in it. The report 
under consideration had, by the tenor of it, put an end 
to all these hopes. In two great points the hands of 
the legislature were absolutely tied. The importation 
of slaves could not be prohibited. Exports could not be 

taxed He had hoped that some accommodation 

would have taken place on the subject, that at least a 
time would have been limited for the. importation of 
slaves. He never could agree to let them be imported 
without limitation, and then to be represented in the 
national legislature." On the same occasion Gouverneur 
Morris of Pennsylvania said, " He never could concur in 
upholding domestic slavery. It was a most nefarious 
institution, it was the curse of heaven on the States 
where it prevailed." ='' 

On the 21st of August, in the debate upon the article 
respecting the importation of slaves, Mr. Rutledge of 
South Carolina said, — " The true question at present is 
whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties 
to the Union." 

Mr. C. C. Pinckney of South Carolina said, "South 
Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the 
slave-trade. In every proposed extension of the power 

* Madison Papers, p. 1261-1263. 
2 



10 



of Congress that State has expressly and watchfully 
excepted that of meddling Avitli the importation of 
negroes."''' 

General Pinckney of South Carolina " declared it to 
be his firm opinion that if himself and all his colleagues 
were to sign the constitution and use their personal in- 
fluence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the 
consent of their constituents. South Carolina and 
Georgia cannot do without slaves .... should con- 
sider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South 
Carolina from the Union." 

Mr. Dickinson of Delaware "considered it as inad- 
missible on every principle of honor and safety that the 
importation of slaves should be authorized to the States 
by the constitution." 

Mr. Williamson of North Carolina "thought the South- 
ern States could not be members of the Union if the 
clause should be rejected." 

Mr. King of Massachusetts " thought the subject 
should be considered in a political light only. If two 
States will not agree to the constitution, as stated on 
one side, he could affirm with equal belief on the other, 
that great and equal opposition would be experienced 
from other States." 

Mr. Langdon of New Hampshire was strenuous for 
giving the power to the general government. lie 
could not, with a good conscience, leave it with the 
States, who could then go on with the traffic."f 

General Pinckney of South Carolina " thought himself 
bound to declare candidly that he did not think South 

* Madison Papers, p. 1389-1392. f lb. p. 1394, 1395. 



/'i 



11 



Carolina would stop her importation of slaves in any 
short time ; but only btop them occasionally as she uovv 
does." He moved that the clause be committed, evi- 
dently for the purpose of so modifying the article as to 
permit the importation. 

Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina said, " If the conven- 
tion thiuks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right 
to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. 
The people of those States will never be such fools as 
to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous 
against striking out the section, and seconded the mo- 
tion of Gen. Pinckney for a commitment." * 

Mr. Sherman of Connecticut said " it was better to let 
the Southern States import slaves than to part with 
them, if they made that a sine qua nonr 

Mr. Randolph of Virginia was "for committing in 
order that. some middle ground might, if possible, be 
found. He could never agree to the clause as it stands. 
He would sooner risk the constitution." -{- 

Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut said, "If we do not 
agree upon this middle and moderate course he was 
afraid we should lose two States, with such others as 
may be disposed to stand aloof, should fly into a variety 
of shapes and directions, and most probably into sev- 
eral confederations, and not without bloodshed." J 

Thus after a protracted and warm discussion, it be- 
came evident that some compromise must be effected 
to reconcile the conflicting views of the North and the 
South; and on motion of General Pinckney of South 

* Madison Papers, p. 1395, 1396. fib. p. 1300, 1397. 

Jib. p. 1397. 



12 



Carolina, seconded by Mr. Rutledge of the same State, 
the subject was referred to a committee of one from 
each State then represented in the convention, evi- 
dently to find some " middle ground " as suggested by 
Mr. Randolph of Virginia, and assented to by Mr. Ells- 
worth and Mr. Sherman of Connecticut, rather than 
lose some of the Southern States, and at the hazard of 
"flying off into several confederations." • 

This committee of eleven was appointed on the 22d 
of August, consisting of Mr. Langdon of New Hamp- 
shire, Mr. King of Massachusetts, Mr. Johnson of Con- 
necticut, Mr. Livingston of New Jerse\^, Mr. Clymer of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Dickinson of Delaware, Mr. Martin 
of Maryland, Mr. Madison of Virginia, Mr. Williamson 
of North Carolina, Mr. C. C. Pinckney of South Caro- 
lina, and Mr. Baldwin of Georgia. On the 24th of 
August this committee reported the clause in the fol- 
lowing form. " The migration or importation of such 
persons as the several States now existing shall think 
proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the legisla- 
ture, prior to the year 1800." 

In the fore";oinu: debates we see no want of zeal in 
favor of the slave-trade, on the part of tlie South, and 
no indifference on the part of the North with regard to 
the tslave-trade, or slavery in general. But it became 
very evident, that, in order to keep the States together, 
there must be some compromise upon the subject, and 
the committee of eleven was chosen for this purpose. 
'J'he South insisted that Congress siiould have no power 
to impose any restrictions on the inipoitation of slaves, 
and the North was determined that there must be a re- 
striction or prohibition in future, if not at present. The 



13 

result was a report from the committee, m substance 
allowing Congress the power of prohibiting the slave- 
trade after the year 1800, and restricting them from 
the exercise of that power before that time. But the 
terms of this compromise were not satisfactory to the 
South, and on the 25th of August, when the report 
came under consideration, it was amended by insertino- 
1808 instead of 1800. From the flict that this amend- 
ment was made without debate, and upon the motion 
of Gen. Pinckney from the South, seconded by Mr. 
Gorham from the North, and that the report was not 
acted upon until the next day after it was laid before 
the convention, it may fairly be presumed that, in the 
mean time, the contending parties had come to an un- 
derstanding upon the subject, and agreed to settle it by 
a silent vote. But there is no indication of any change 
of opinion or feeling, either by northern or southern 
members, from what had been expressed in the preced- 
ing debate. Even after the question was decided, "Gouv- 
erneur Morris was for making the clause read at once, 
' The iinportfdion of slaves into North Carolina, South Caro- 
lina, and Georgia shall not be prohibited^ etc. This, he said, 

would be most fair He wished it to be known 

that this part of the constitution was a compliance with 
those States. If the change of language, however, 
should be objected to by the members from those 
States, he should not uro;e it."'-' 

That the same feeling continued to prevail with the 
southern members is evident from the course taken by 
iMr. Rutledge of South Caroliua within a week of the 

* Madison Papers, p. 1427. 



1-i 



close of the convention. When the provisions respect- 
ing amendments to the constitution were under con- 
sideration, with true southern perseverance, to guard 
against every possibiUty of defeat where the interest of 
his State was concerned, he said, " He never would 
agree to give a power by which the articles relating to 
slaves might be altered by the States not mterested in 
that property, and prejudiced against it." In order to 
obviate this objection these words were added to the 
proposition: — "Provided that no amendments which 
may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any man- 
ner affect the fourth and fifth sections of the seventh 
article." '•' 

Now let us look back to the view of the case with 
wliich we commenced, and which amounts to little less 
than a charge upon the free States as the advocates of 
slavery, and giving the slave States the credit of being 
the champions of freedom. One would think that the 
absurdity of this would secure it from currency and be- 
lief, but nothing seems too absurd to gain credit with 
those who are disposed to believe a thing because it is 
unreasonable. Published in a widely' circulating paper 
at the seat of government, with some show of author- 
ity by quotation from the journal of the convention, 
adopted as correct in a work professing to take a candid 
view of the matter, quoted and repeated by southern 
men in their speeches in the senate, imcontradicted, — 
nay, admitted by a senator from the North, what shoukl 
prevent it from becoming a settled axiom of history, — 
such as might well give occasion for the remark of Wal- 



15 



pole, " Give me any thing but history, for that must be 
false." To be sure the materials exist for correctino; the 
falsehood ; but what influence have such materials, rest- 
ing upon the shelves of our libraries, against the confi- 
dent assertions of political writers upon an exciting sub- 
ject, constantly obtruded before the public by a party 
press. 

From the whole of the foregoing view of the matter 
there seems to be no reason to charge any northern 
State or individual with lukewarmness in regard to 
slavery, or to compliment the South wdth any excess of 
liberality on the subject. Without indulging in any 
animosity or reproaches against the North or the South, 
it is very clear that the articles of the constitution in 
relation to slavery, as well as many other subjects, were 
the result of concession and compromise, without which 
it w^ould have been impossible to have agreed upon the 
constitution under which we have thus far prospered, or 
to have devised any means of continuing that union of 
States which has made us a nation, and without which 
we should only have been a weak confederacy, or per- 
haps a league of contending communities. It is much 
to be regretted that there is at present such a want of 
that conciliatory feeling, the true ^^ spirit of 'seventy-six^'' 
as must make us doubt whether, even in this age of im- 
provement, we are in reality growing wiser than our 
fathers. 

Cambridge, Marcli, 185G. 



/^ 



Lli.Hr'20 



